In the media coverage of the global finance crisis over the last weeks there has been a massive call for a revival of the virtues. Everyone from the Archbishop of Canterbury to tabloid journalists has condemned the behaviour of finance industry professionals and words like avarice, immoderation and selfishness have repeatedly featured in the news. It would appear that Gordon Gecko’s once trendy motto “Greed is good” has lost some if its appeal.
You might think after Usain Bolt’s almost superhuman performances in the 100 and 200 m that the war on doping has been won. However winning one battle is not winning the war. As the example of Lyudmila Blonska shows, doping is still occurring. It is almost certain that there are other medals and world records that were achieved by athletes who were doping but were not caught. The sophistication of the technology means that just because we are picking up fewer positive tests, it does not mean that there are fewer athletes doping
A new worry has hit parents: digital drugs. The idea is that sounds can affect brain states, so by listening to the right kind of sounds desired brain states can be induced – relaxation, concentration, happiness, PMS relief or why not hallucinations? Apparently "idosers" walk around high on sound. Just the right thing for a summer moral panic – kids, computers, drugs and pseudoscience.
Drug scandals again tarnish the Tour de France. Last week three riders, Spaniards Manuel Beltrain and Moises Duenas and Italian climber Riccardo Ricco, winner of two mountain stages, failed tests for the banned performance enhancer EPO. This year has seen fewer spectacular expulsions, but of course the game is not over.
Does this mean the drug testers are winning the war on drugs? It might. But it might also mean that cyclists and their doctors are getting better at evading testing. A recent BBC investigation supports the latter conclusion. WADA labs have been proven to fail to pick up positive results. There are 80 copy-cat drugs, produced in China, India and Cuba, which are difficult to detect. And labs apparently collude with doctors to “exchange knowledge” on testing procedures. Expert Professor Bengt Saltin, a leading anti-doping expert and a former winner of the IOC Olympic Prize, the highest honour in sports science, said
"I would think that most of the medal winners and many in the finals of endurance events – there is a big risk for them having used EPO."
So despite the numbers of athletes being prosecuted for EPO declining by two-thirds between 2003 and 2006, Professor Saltin concluded this was due to evasion, not a reduction in use.
"The reason that I am still a little bit upset with the whole situation is that I have seen too many suspicious samples that are clearly abnormal. Athletes are getting away with it. Look how many have been caught for EPO misuse recently."
The response is predictable: widen testing critieria. Experts have suggested that urine samples should be tested for any evidence of naturally produced EPO. If there is none, it should be classed as suspicious because the use of artificial EPO for doping causes the body’s own production to shut down. These experts also call for testing of blood profiles as well as the urine. An analysis of the number of young red blood cells can also indicate doping.
Is this a solution? No. It will simply escalate the war to the next level. History has proven the ability of athletes and their doctors to ingeniously evade detection. We will never win the war on doping.
Making headlines last week, Melbourne bioethicist Rob Sparrow argued that in order to create the best future for their children, parents should select only girl children or hermaphrodites. He imagined a “post-sex” world in which males are no longer conceived, and women use frozen sperm, or artificial gametes to reproduce.
The New
Scientist recently reviewed a variety of studies showing that many traits often supposed unique to humans are in fact shared by
animals. There is evidence that apes, dolphins,
songbirds, elephants, and monkeys share with humans some of the
most important aspects of behaviour associated with speech; killer whales have
distinct cultural groups; great apes and some monkeys have a degree of
understanding of the minds of others, enabling them to deceive; chimpanzees,
gorillas, and crows use tools; and there is suggestive evidence that elephants,
magpies, baboons, whales, and chimpanzees demonstrate emotional behaviour, and
that monkeys and rats are capable of drawing primitive moral distinctions.
Claims that animals have capacities usually thought
unique to humans are controversial, and those who make them are often accused
of anthropomorphising animal behaviour. Plausibly,
there is often more to such accusations than concern for explanatory
parsimony. As humans, we profit from
using animals—for food, research, sport, and so on—in ways that we would not
use other humans, and suggestions that animals are more like humans than we
usually suppose place an unwelcome demand on society to rethink its ethical stance
towards animals. This suggests that a
clear division between humans and other species is important to us in justifying
the discrepancies between what we view as ethical treatment of other humans and
what we view as ethical treatment of non-human animals. Pragmatically speaking, if we
humans wish to retain a privileged moral status, and if our privileged moral
status is at least partly due to our being different to other animals in
certain important (usually biologically-based) respects, then it is in our
interests to resist attempts to draw similarities between humans and other
animals.
Read More »Same species, different needs: could ‘genes for’ improve the way we treat animals?
A report by the Academy of Medical Sciences looking at different aspects of drug use and mental health has identified a growing trend for off-label use of drugs intended for the treatment of diseases including narcolepsy, ADHD and Alzheimer’s. The use of such drugs by a healthy individual can improve memory, alertness and concentration. While the report does not condemn the practice, it raises a number of potential concerns over safety, and fairness. Professor Les Iversen, report co-author, highlighted concerns that the use of enhancement in exams would unfairly advantage wealthier students, and suggested that the use of such drugs could be considered cheating. The report recommends that legislation is prepared to tackle the misuse of such drugs, including the potential for urine testing in schools and universities.
Below are responses from Julian Savulescu, Nick Bostrom, Anders Sandberg and Mark Sheehan on the effects of cognitive enhancing drugs, and the issue of cheating
Read More »Brain Boosting and Cheating in Exams: Four Responses
Professor John Harris wonders Who’s afraid
of a synthetic human? in the Times. He argues we should support
the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill because it will help us develop
effective therapies and enhance ourselves. Science is about bettering our lot,
after all. In particular, he says, synthetic biology may help us avoid going
extinct due to our vulnerabilities and instead enable us to choose (or become)
our successors as a species.
possibility of a posthuman future. The traditional view of the future is a
stark one: either humanity extinct, or humans roughly as they are today. The
posthuman options would be that we either change ourselves so radically that
the resulting species is so fundamentally different from humanity that we
would regard it as something entirely new, or that we create some kind of independent
beings that continue our culture even as traditional humanity retires from the
forefront (hopefully as proud parents of the new beings). The range of possible
options within these scenarios is endless, inviting equally endless and loud
speculation. That tends to distract from the key message of Harris’ essay: we
are leaving the realm of natural evolution and entering what he calls a realm
of enhancement evolution.
New Scientist
reports this week claims that the reason human cognitive powers are so
superior to those of other animals has to do not with biology alone, but also
with our ability to interact with others and with the world.
The Queensland Government, in Australia, has announced it will ban cosmetic surgery in people under 18 years of age. Other states, such as New South Wales, have stated they will also consider restricting access by teenagers to cosmetic enhancement.
This is problematic in a number of ways.
